Ron Miller: A Very Different Christian Story

[Tobin S.]

This is a long video from a Bible scholar named Ron Miller speaking at the Theosophical Society that I found very interesting. Ron talks a lot about the way to truly understand the Bible- particularly the New Testament and the story of Jesus. He says that to truly understand a text, you also have to understand the time in history in which it was written, and, to have the most understanding, the language it was originally written in. Ron knows the original languages that the New Testament was written in, and his view jibes with the liberal view of Christ.

He also says that later interpretations of the Bible were sometimes corrupted by the political agenda of those commissioning the interpretations. For example, he says that Biblical admonitions against homosexuality weren't originally in the Bible. Those modern day references were originally more likely admonitions against male prostitution. He also explains Jesus's views on divorce from the historical lens stating that in Jesus's time, for women, a divorce was like a death sentence. Such a woman was publicly an outcast.

[standingtall]

1. No one alive has ever seen the original manuscripts of either the old or new testament

including this guy, but the manuscript evidence is what it is so he is just trying to remake the bible out of his own imagination.

[Tobin S.]

2. I don't think so.

What I said was the original language in which the New Testament was written. He's seen that. Are you calling this man a liar? Also, I know you've not had time to view the entire video. If you are going to make that kind of judgement about it you should take the time to view it.

[standingtall]

3. No he has not all 3 biblical languages have been dead for 1500 years

no one speaks them or reads them naturally. I don't doubt he has been to some school where he was taught those languages so have many other scholars. The speaker already made a judgement when he referred to belief in an absolute bible as idolatry. Faith in God and belief in his word go hand in hand. Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Logic follows if we are to live by every word of God then not only should we have them,but we ought to be able to what they are.

[Tobin S.]

4. Watch the video.

Latin has been dead for a long time too, but people still know how to read and speak it. I don't see how you can make any kind of intelligent judgement if you don't actually view the material. It would be like commenting on any kind of topic without actually understanding it first. That's just nonsense.

[Liberal Insights]

9. What ?

If I am deciphering your cryptic English properly, you are saying that "All 3 biblical languages have been dead for 1500 years".
What languages are you talking about ?
"Aramaic remains a spoken, literary, and liturgical language for local Christians and also some Jews. Aramaic also continues to be spoken by the Assyrians of Iraq, northeastern Syria, southeastern Turkey and northwest Iran, with diaspora communities in Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan and southern Russia."
https://www.google.com/search?q=aramaic+language+spoken&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

And Hebrew and Greek are still spoken!
Latin might be virtually dead, but no part of the original bible was written in Latin!

When the R.C. Church was debating (at the second Vatican Council) the issue of allowing the faithful to worship in their own languages, as opposed to the traditional Latin, one conservative bishop reportedly objected on the basis that "If Latin was good enough for Jesus, it ought to be good enough for us Catholics".

[standingtall]

10. All 3 biblical languages are dead including the Aramaic

Last edited Thu Nov 1, 2018, 09:05 PM - Edit history (2)

The Aramaic of today is very different than the Aramaic spoken thousands of years ago same for the koine Greek and Hebrew. Yes there are people who speak them today, but the scholar in the video has the same information that all scholars who have translated bible throughout history had he doesn't have anything new. So why would I believe him as if he were some kind of authority on the subject. Especially after he denied what Jesus meant by saying I am in John 8.The underlying Greek word eimi conveys the same meaning as I am. Same with the underlying Hebrew word in Exodus 3 Haw-yaw.He may have had some good points, but I cannot take someone seriously when they try and reduce Jesus to just some nice guy.

By original bible do you mean original autographs? If so you are correct. The original autographs were never compiled into one book to make a bible and are long lost and will never be recovered anyway. There could not be bibles as we know them until after the 4th and 5th century, because the canons of scripture were not developed until after then although some claim Origen may have had a bible with all 66 books of the protestant canon in the 3rd century, but there is no proof of that.

[TomSlick]

5. Thanks for the posting.

Miller was an interesting writer. Serious biblical scholars agree that the Gospels must be read in the historical context and with a view toward the intended audience.

[Tobin S.]

7. You're welcome, Tom.

[guillaumeb]

6. Recommended.

A very interesting and logical presentation.

[Tobin S.]

8. Thank you. n/t